The stats for week 7 will be Receiving yards and Sacks. For Josh's sake, I've gone ahead and picked the categories for the rest of the year. There is a slight advantage to one category for this year, but over the three year span this will/should even out.
I apologize that rushing yards have seemed to be ignored up to this point. To be fair Josh, this is week 7 in the first year of a three year league. There will be apparent "lopsidedness" at first, which is why you are upset. However, at any point in the three year span, as long as the categories are chosen randomly, there should be apparent "lopsidedness".
If you flip a coin 100 times, do you complain if the first 5 times are heads? No, because you know that over the course of the entire time, you are bound to get more even.
I hope everyone understands that every rule put into place has a purpose in this league, and this one is to award well balanced teams. If you are going after the 25pts for Receiving Yards, you are compromising your chances of gaining the 5 weekly points for Rushing and Passing Yards categories. That's the purpose of this. There will be some players that dominate categories. They will miss out when their chosen categories aren't picked. They will have an advantage when they are. A well balanced team can benefit every week by being competitive in each category, but not necessarily dominating any of them.
The actual numbers for past week and this week should be up soon. Should be. Soon.
BTW, I deleted the chatroom, since there's chat on Stattracker.
ReplyDeleteWhy "for Josh's sake" instead of "because it makes sense?
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that 39 (13 x 3)repetitions is not a significant enough data set to achieve anywhere close to normal distribution, so if there is a desire for things to be somewhat even (which it certainly seems that is the intention), then a random draw won't work.
It's not like I'm losing out with the system as is. After this week I'm tied for tops with 15 total points. But the other way is better...
Admit it.
It's not better. It would normalize the entire process, so that there's no risk in focusing only on one category. That's the point.
ReplyDeleteHuh, what was all that talk about normal distribution? I could have sworn that your whole point in all that was that everything would even out in the end. Was I wrong?
ReplyDeleteI like this look for the blog better.
ReplyDelete